HomeMy WebLinkAbout1847515256
.TF.E1I~ W~IITE ,
Plaintiff
vs
WILLIAM B. WHI1E
Defendant
IN 11~ CIRCITIT (XxJRT OF '1tiE
IvII~.'1F.EIJIH JUDICIAL CIRLITIT
IN AND FiOR SAINf IACIE QO[~T1Y
STATE OF FIARII~A
CASE N0. 80-485-CA
ORDER
THIS CAU.SE c~ne cm before this (burt upan the forn~er wife`s Nbtion
to hav~e the forn~er husband held in cvntempt and reduoe oertain aria,aits to
~udgnent, the husband beir~ present ~nd caa~.sel for boCh p~ties being present
amd
The Courct having been fi~nished a cvpy of an order signed the
Sth day of January, 1981, granti~g the wife's Pbtion to accept alimony
payments pendirag appeal and the Caut having heard argun~ents of oouisel,
the Caurt finds that there has not been a reasanaUle time lapse betw~een the
date and servioe of the arder to.hold the husband in cantempt, it is. therefore
~
ORDERED:
1. T1~at the wife's trotion be and the same is hereby denied at
this time withaut prejudice to her ripht to recall the moticm or file such
additional moitan should the circumst~noes warrant the filing of sane.
DQ~ AND ORCERED in Qia~ers this 2 8 day of Jarnsary , 1981.
515256
1961 !~-~j 29 P~ ~ 23
FII~C t~C ~j LVri~: l~
5 ROGER P011P.t S ~
CLERK CIF.Lu1T Cr,~.:~ ~~1
:,; ~j;F'~ '~ i :.- t ' ~.;~ r '
~~
Jdl~tor '
AGTING CIRC[JIT JIJDC£
s~x347 ~~cE1841
~-~-~.~+..-1`~ ~~.'~ . -
' '~,r~~<~'~-~:.,s~ ~.~ .- ... . . _
~
3~t
.~lsis,~i.".s~v~